header-logo header-logo

Whiplash boost fails to impress

27 November 2024
Issue: 8096 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Compensation
printer mail-detail
A 15% increase in the tariff for soft tissue injuries ‘is not enough’, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL) has warned.

The Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood announced the rise last week in response both to Consumer Price Index inflation since 2021, when whiplash reforms took effect and tariffs were introduced, and forecasted inflation to May 2027, when the next statutory review is likely to take place.

Under the Civil Liability Act 2018, the Lord Chancellor sets a tariff for whiplash injuries of up to two years in duration and makes regulations to do so, and is required to review those regulations within three years of implementation. The Act also banned offers to settle claims without medical evidence.

Mahmood kept the existing split structure of whiplash only and whiplash plus minor psychological injury tariffs, and the allowable judicial uplift of 20% of the tariff award for exceptional injuries or circumstances. She made no change to the definitions of what constitutes appropriate medical evidence and who may provide it prior to an offer to settle being made.

However, APIL president Kim Harrison said: ‘Following this review injured people will receive less compensation in real terms than they did in 2021 when the tariff was introduced.

‘If the Lord Chancellor were simply to increase the actual tariff, as introduced, in line with inflation using the Consumer Price Index, rather than making convoluted predictions about future inflation, the increase to damages in the tariff would be 22%. Increases in inflation have been eroding injured people’s damages since the tariff was introduced, a tariff which was set at an insulting, arbitrary level to begin with.

‘The facts are that since the tariff came into effect, the number of claims has plummeted, the cost of injury claims to insurers has nosedived, and yet motor premiums have continued to rise.’

Issue: 8096 / Categories: Legal News , Personal injury , Compensation
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll